Expando Planet Theory more likely than Nirubu/Planet X...and happening NOW?!!!!

reply to post by Mayura


Thanks for that video by Neal Adams, Mayura. I watched it, and when I get a chance, I'm going to check out some more of his videos.

He has a very good balance between keeping it simple without talking down to people, and making it so dumb that people would be insulted, unlike this sarcastic debunking video someone posted earlier.

Even if I felt Neal Adams video was totally wrong, I would never exhibit the attitude shown on the debunking video. I wanted to smack that guy!!!

reply to post by stereologist


You only consider bias if you have reason to believe there is bias. When we are talking about a proven GPS system, then there is no reason to assume bias.

If you have consistent repeatable, accurate data, then you consider any bias to be minimal, and should easily be dealt with with calibration procedures. The information provided in the link I found seems scientifically valid, and your claims about needing to assume bias show that you are clueless about making these types of measurements. Attacking the work of others without any valid reason is considered to be unethical in the scientific community.

Actually I did address the possibility, and in my opinion, the probability, that if the Earth is continuing to grow, that this growth is not linear. You seem to be too convinced that you are right to even pay any attention to the data that is presented.

It seems to be a waste to show you anything specific.

reply to post by stereologist


Take a dry sponge, one that has been flattened. Then soak the sponge with water, and see what happens.

Look at lava, it is very sponge like. We are talking about volume, when we are talking about things expanding, not density.

reply to post by poet1b

You only consider bias if you have reason to believe there is bias. When we are talking about a proven GPS system, then there is no reason to assume bias.

That's laughable. You always assume that there is bias until proven otherwise.

If you have consistent repeatable, accurate data, then you consider any bias to be minimal,

Repeatable is often confused with accurate. It simply means that you can get the same answer time and again. It has no bearing on whether the answer is precise or accurate.

How do you know that the data is accurate? Maybe you don't understand the difference between accuracy and precision?

and your claims about needing to assume bias

very poor attempt at a straw man argument. My statement was very simple, the stations used int he measurement were a biased sample of positions around the Earth. Hence, the claims of the math were not correct.

Attacking the work of others without any valid reason is considered to be unethical in the scientific community.

I provided simple reasons that the assumptions of the mathematics were questionable. I notice that you avoided the issue of the 1/sqrt(n) formula. Is that due to your limited understanding of these issues?

Actually I did address the possibility, and in my opinion, the probability, that if the Earth is continuing to grow, that this growth is not linear.

The growth according to the claims of this questionable blog is nonlinear. The use of diameter as a measure of growth is a poor value to use for a 3d structure.

It seems to be a waste to show you anything specific.

That's a poor excuse. It strongly suggests that your vague claim is just that - a vague claim.

reply to post by poet1b

Take a dry sponge, one that has been flattened. Then soak the sponge with water, and see what happens.

Look at lava, it is very sponge like. We are talking about volume, when we are talking about things expanding, not density.

What a ridiculous model!! Lava is not sponge like. That's so hilarious. What nonsense.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Assuming all planets, including Earth just appeared randomly in space as a constant sized sphere is ludicrous.

Everyone is tossing out straw man arguments. Who claimed anything about a constant sized sphere? Di d you?

The Earth is not expanding. Where is the additional mass coming from? The Moon is moving away from the Earth, not being drawn closer.

A typical problem associated with the expanding Earth problem is the Himalayas. Another problem is all of the subduction zones around the world. Another problem is the collision of Africa into Europe. The problems are endless.

reply to post by sezsue


Plate tectonics is the follow up to continental drift. Although these very different ideas are often mixed together they are quite different. One of the main reasons that plate tectonics did not come into being before the 1950s was the limited understanding of the Earth's surface covered by oceans. That represents 69% of the surface was that only being understood after WWII.

reply to post by sezsue


To me the primary failing of the expanding Earth claims is where does the additional mass come from?

I have not discussed this in detail because there are other wacko problems with the idea that can be discussed first.

reply to post by sezsue


The expanding Earth claims are actually quite ludicrous. I am not surprised that the video was nasty. It should be. These wacko groundless claims are common and are meant to dupe people into spending money on books that de-educate people. They fill them with falsehoods.

S and F!!!
Ive been a firm believer in the earth expansion theory for a year now after reading an article on it in the magazine Nexus, the evidence is very convincing and makes alot of sense to me, Im glad the theory is getting out...
And I do agree that TPTB could be attempting to blindside us, thanks to them many people will have their eyes glued to the skies when their focus should be the growing ground!
With the Sun setting to join the Tree of life in 2012, possibly creating a much bigger expansion than usual?, it should make for very exciting Christmas next year!

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sezsue

 

To me the primary failing of the expanding Earth claims is where does the additional mass come from?

I have not discussed this in detail because there are other wacko problems with the idea that can be discussed first.

Sigh, it does not take much to google it does it? Instead of blasting those who actually have done the research!
Here, Ive done some for you;

"ACCREATION---A NEW THEORY OF PLANETARY CREATION The preceding evidence of Earth’s growth by accretion of extraterrestrial matter and accelerating expansion made it obvious to me that our planet was not rapidly created 4.5-4.6 Ga (billion years ago) in its present size, shape, volume and chemical composition as decreed by the Kant-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, nor as recounted in Genesis in the Bible.

With this realization it became clear that a new theory of Earth's creation was needed, one that would agree with the slow planetary growth process garnered in my research on expansion of the planet. The conclusion was simple; the process itself amounted to a new cosmological theory of creation of the Earth and Solar System I named simply ACCREATION (creation by accretion) because that is the way the planet was formed. (The theory also should be applicable to all planetary bodies in our Solar System and other galaxies in the Universe. )

Therefore, the current belief must be nullified and replaced by an entirely new theory of Earth’s creation, one based on a cometary nucleus orbiting the Sun slowly enlarged by gravitational accretion of extraterrestrial matter until it reached spherical shape, at which point gravity could omni-directionally focus total weight of the protoplanet on its exact center.

From this point forward, gravity began to generate immense gravitational pressure that heated and melted originally cold proto-planetary rock to form a molten core that is constantly expanding, thereby creating irresistible tectonic force that fractured the planet’s outer shell and eventually extruded magma, minerals, gases, and H2O from volcanoes, and midocean ridges later, to initiate formation of an atmosphere and hydrosphere.

This core melting and expansion process is the dynamic mechanism that expanded and gradually elevated all surface areas radially outward from the planet’s center— which is best exemplified by the Antarctic continent expanding southward AWAY from all other continents."

Got that from;
www.expanding-earth.org...

If your serious about denying ignorance, then try opening your mind an inch and allowing for the slight possibility that maybe just maybe, we are being lied to by the MAINSTREAM leaders in science and government, I promise you will be that much freer for it!

reply to post by sezsue

Also, I read that the tectonic plate theory has only been around since about the 1950's.....but it also seems like information that is coming out now may actually also support the "Expansion" theory.

Yes, 1960s actually. It was some darned new fangled theory that no one was sure about when I was studying geology at college.

reply to post by Rhebefree

Sigh, it does not take much to google it does it? Instead of blasting those who actually have done the research!
Here, Ive done some for you;

Oh great you've done an internet search to turn up hoax material. That's so easy to do isn't it.

Paragraph 1 says little at all and Paragraph 2 claims that a new theory is needed although no reasons are given. Paragraph 3 says the same and then claims that at least a cometary nucleus existed. The problem is that if a comet nucleus were orbitting at the Earth's orbit it would have boiled away quickly.

at which point gravity could omni-directionally focus total weight of the protoplanet on its exact center.

It certainly sounds like the author does nor understand weight and gravity.

From this point forward, gravity began to generate immense gravitational pressure that heated and melted originally cold proto-planetary rock to form a molten core that is constantly expanding, thereby creating irresistible tectonic force that fractured the planet’s outer shell and eventually extruded magma, minerals, gases, and H2O from volcanoes, and midocean ridges later, to initiate formation of an atmosphere and hydrosphere.

The claim seems to be that the accretion model of solar system formation holds until this person wants to invoke the unexplained expansion malarkey.

This core melting and expansion process is the dynamic mechanism that expanded and gradually elevated all surface areas radially outward from the planet’s center— which is best exemplified by the Antarctic continent expanding southward AWAY from all other continents.

This seems to rely on the false idea that there are no subduction zones around Antarctica.

If your serious about denying ignorance, then try opening your mind an inch and allowing for the slight possibility that maybe just maybe, we are being lied to by the MAINSTREAM leaders in science and government, I promise you will be that much freer for it! /quote]
Open our mind to the evidence and forget this ludicrous notion of being lied to by the mainstream leaders in science. Test the ideas and see that the expanding Earth claims are really, really dumb.

Here are some beauties from this site:

This discovery also led me to conclude that gravity is the primary force responsible for the spherical shape of all planetary bodies.

That has been known by astronomers and geophysicists for a long, long time.

This is followed by this ridiculous conclusion.

creating tectonic pressure that must either explode the planet or rupture its confining outer shell.

This wacko conclusion does not follow. Where is the extra energy coming from to explode the planet? Why should the force inside of the planet exceed the force caused by gravity?

Volcanoes also recycle core magma onto existing surface areas and thereby add to the planet’s diameter.

This is really dumb. I can't believe how dumb this is. So this person claims that if you take material from the inside and move it to the outside that the planet gets bigger? How ridiculous! That's like claiming that a pie gets larger if the contents boil out through a slit while baking. The removed material from inside causes the mass to remain the same. The only difference in volume is due to changes in the thermal expansion of the materials involved.

How convenient that the writer completely overlooks the issue of subduction zones. What is this fraud trying to hide?

reply to post by stereologist


In instrumentation, first your data must be repeatable. If your tests are not repeatable, then they can not be accurate. If you can not get repeatable data, the same results consistently when making measurements, then you can not measure anything.

Set up an ice bath, not really an easy thing to do if you have ever calibrated instruments to a high degree of uncertainty. If you don't get the same measurement repeatedly, whether your are looking at at tube of mercury or an electronic signal, then your technique is flawed. Once you establish that you are getting repeatable results, then you can calibrate your instruments, removing bias from the equation.

The more repeatable your measurements are, the more accurate and the more precise you instrumentation is. This is the basis of all instrumentation, and all scientific testing. Why do you think organizations like NIST exist? What do you think "standards" are?

I have over twenty years experience in this area, and it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.

reply to post by stereologist


Yes, lava is sponge like in that it is very porous.

The magna released onto the surface expands as it cools.

Through erosion, rocks are broken down. The same amount of material then takes up more space.

reply to post by Rhebefree


That is a really nice web site. Thanks for the link.

I like this part.

www.expanding-earth.org...

A key discovery in developing this new Accreation Theory came in 1987 from listing most of the larger known bodies in the Solar System by size. [See list below] This list produced an illuminating fact—all smaller solar bodies appear to be irregularly-shaped, but as diameters reach ~400-600 km (~250-375 mi), they become nearly spherical, and ALL ARE SPHERICAL by the time they reach a diameter of ~940 km (~585 mi).

This discovery led me to conclude that all bodies in the Solar System must be created by the same accreation process, whether comet, meteoroid, asteroid, planet or Sun—their only real differences being size, shape, and compositional variety provided by newly-arrived supernovae fragments (comets) and meteor flux from different galactic sources.

This discovery also led me to conclude that gravity is the primary force responsible for the spherical shape of all planetary bodies. After an irregularly-shaped proto-planetary body reaches spherical shape by slow external accretion of mass, the total gravitational pressure of its mass (weight) can be focused omnidirectionally on its exact center, causing compressive heating of originally cold central core material and a phase change to molten magma that expands, creating tectonic pressure that must either explode the planet or rupture its confining outer shell.

What an astute observation. This is the first explanation I have ever heard that provides a reasonable explanation why large bodies form into spheres.

Great stuff.

reply to post by sezsue


Hmmmm... yes Sue, some secrets are so big they undermine entire scientific foundations. Sometimes I act haughty when presenting such things, just to get through to people.

Oh well, everyone expands awareness at their own strides...

Sometimes you have to feel more than think these days, women especially. Getting back in touch with the intuitive side of things is absolutely marvelous! That's something science has also suppressed.

reply to post by poet1b


??? Really? The "first" time you've realized this?:

This is the first explanation I have ever heard that provides a reasonable explanation why large bodies form into spheres.

I hate to break it to you, but this is already been understood for a long time. I fear that, despite your arrogant rant at "stereo" up there.....it is YOU embracing the ignorance, by giving even two seconds of your time and consideration to "expanding Earth" nonsense.

Very interesting, and I must say again....(as has been mentioned in many other threads) I am beginning to wonder about the quality levels of the science curriculum sthey teach in primary and secondary school education systems, anymore.....I have this terrible feeling that our schools are failing us, as a society.

(Although, it may be relatively isolated....can't be sure, yet....).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Do you realize that the explanation I am referring to pretty much proves expanding planet theory?

You are contradicting yourself here.

This is clearly not the way I was taught on how planets formed into spheres. You might want to read further. I don't think you get it.

When you start thinking you have it all pretty much figured out, that is when you toss your scientific understanding out the window.